related resourcesHome page
> About
the Commission > Public
Service Commissioner > Media archive > Speech
‹ Previous page
"The Australian Public Service: A values-based Service
Presentation to 2002 IIPE Biennial Conference on "Reconstructing
'The Public Interest' in a Globalising World: Business, the Professions
and the Public Sector
Brisbane
Andrew Podger
Public Service Commissioner
5 October 2002
My talk today will go through a series of quotes by public servants, Ministers and academics, to provide some background to the Public Service Act and its reliance on explicit values.
I hope that copies of my speech will be available after this session.
Let me turn first to my predecessor, Helen Williams:
"Values have traditionally played a central role in the context of public service ethics and can be traced back to both Weberian philosophy and to the influence of developments such as the British Northcote-Trevelyan reforms which were introduced as a reaction to the previous climate of patronage and favouritism."
Williams, 1999
Values and ethics, until recently have been implicit, not explicit. They were achieved through the application of specific rules, rather than through the understanding of concepts. The application of the merit principle is an example.
"The application of merit based employment focused on establishing and refining a process - setting specific selection criteria, correctly advertising the position, receiving written applications, convening a panel, shortlisting, interviewing, obtaining referee reports and making a recommendation to a delegate. In effect, there was protection through process." (
Williams, 1999
Rules can be impediments to efficiency and flexibility
Detailed rules, however, while ensuring good process, did not ensure efficiency.
The cost of government and the increasing expectations of citizens have led to a rigorous review of the funding of public services and the efficiency with which they are performed.
Lessons from the private sector
"In these circumstances, it is not surprising that governments have looked to the private sector, used to coping with market pressures, for techniques to produce greater management efficiencies."
Williams, 1998
Non-core activities have been privatised or corporatised, delivery functions outsourced, other activities are being market-tested, regulation and prescription are being significantly lessened and employer powers have been devolved to individual agency heads. "At the same time there is growing emphasis on corporate governance issues in the private sector and both the public and private sectors are subject to the Workplace Relations Act 1996. From both sides, therefore, public and private sector management practices appear to be converging." (Williams, 1998)
Shift to focus on results, but need for enduring principles, and increasing importance of relationships (Values)
In both public and private sectors, there has been a shift in management thinking. Firstly, there was the greater focus on results, together with greater flexibility for managers to deliver ("let the managers manage"). This focus then shifted a little as managers recognised the need to consider how those results are achieved, including the skills required amongst employees, the management of their performance and the introduction of "process re-engineering" to complement the previous emphasis on financial management. More recently, "Values-based management" is becoming increasingly important as managers search for an enduring framework that might support longer term organisational capability development, while allowing more flexibility to make decisions in an environment where the rate of change continues to increase. The emphasis is turning to relationships and personal leadership capabilities and, to use the in-term, "emotional intelligence".
In the public sector, what kind of Values would fulfil the needs of government, the public service and the expectations of the public at large? The challenge is to identify some enduring principles, which would not only satisfy these continuing needs but also be robust enough to govern the behaviour of public servants and provide real support as they carry out their policy advising and program management responsibilities.
What also becomes obvious in the search for enduring principles is that it is the nature of our relationships with the government and our stakeholders that must govern how we work and the kinds of decisions we make. In other words, the Values that we need to identify should describe the nature of the relationships we have with our stakeholders.
International challenges
Let me turn for a moment, given the overall theme of this Conference, to the challenge of developing internationally accepted Values frameworks.
- (Dileep has of course addressed this in more details in his talk.)
In his fascinating and most recent book, The Capacity to Govern, that old warhorse of public administration writers, Professor Yehezkel Dror, lists first amongst the requirements raison d'humanité (the interests and needs of humanity as a whole):
"The single most important - and also most radical and difficult - change required in governance is to make it more moral, above all in the sense of increasingly serving ever higher conceptions of raison d'humanité with special attention to values concerning the future."
Would it be possible to develop a set of global governance arrangements that transcends nation-states' interests, which now provide the building blocks for international relations? If it is possible, it almost certainly requires the development of clearer values frameworks. Dror is tantalising, but not confident, about the possibility:
"It must be stressed again that there can be no abstract model of 'optimal' governance and no universally valid operational conception of 'the best capacities to govern'. This is because the desirability of different forms of governance depends on values, histories and on the situations within which governance is operating."
He sees the emergence of the European Union as an interesting development beyond the nation-states. Perhaps our closer relations with New Zealand represent another such development. But these fall far short of a global framework based on shared values.
PS Act reforms: prescription to Values and role of Public Service Commissioner
So let me return to Australia and the Australian Public Service, to explore whether we might at least have a model of good practice. In Australia, the passage of the PS Act has been an important milestone. The Act contains a set of Australian Public Service Values and a Code of Conduct for public servants. Its passage marked a shift away from centrally prescribed rules of process to legislated principles, giving Heads of agencies the flexibility to manage, while at the same time requiring the Public Service Commissioner to evaluate agencies' performance against the Values.
Role of APS in democratic system
Successive Ministers have recognised the critical role of the APS in our democratic system of government. The previous Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Public Service, David Kemp, said:
"A dynamic, high performing public service is vital to the democratic, economic and social wellbeing of any country and its citizens."
Kemp, 2001
My current Minister, Tony Abbott, is more flamboyant in his description:
"The Australian Public Service provides the muscles and sinews of our national life.Under all governments, the public service has provided institutional ballast, corporate memory and a permanent commitment to fair dealing and the rule of law.Equally with the parliament, the courts and the armed forces, the Australian Public Service will remain one of the essential pillars of a great democracy."
Abbott, 2002
Two themes from Coombs: responsiveness and managing for results
In many respects the Public Service Act 1999 represents the culmination of the changes that had already been occurring over the previous 25 years, building on the reform themes in the 1976 Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (RCAGA) under the chairmanship of Dr HC Coombs.
Tim Rowse and a number of other observers recently revisited the RCAGA reforms (Australian Journal of Public Administration, March 2002). Rowse noted that
"Academic reviewers of the RCAGA Report sought a central theme in the report. Sydney University's Dick Spann (1977) saw three themes which did not sit easily together: a theory of political control, a theory of rational management and a theory of participation."
Notwithstanding the academics' debate, I think Spann's reference to these three key themes is right.
I want to draw on the importance of the first two in particular in terms of their influence over public sector reforms in the following two decades.
These two themes have emerged time and again in the public sector reforms of the last 25 years. Increased responsiveness to the elected Government was the main focus of the Dawkins reforms in the 1980's, and can be seen in subsequent changes such as contracts for departmental secretaries and performance pay. Increased focus on results and performance led firstly to program budgeting and the series of delegations of financial and personnel authority to agencies during the 1980's and 1990's, together with purchaser/provider splits, followed by privatisation and outsourcing, and the Howard Government's 'outcomes and outputs' budget framework in the late 1990's. Few critics seem to appreciate that this 'managerialism agenda' originated with the Whitlam Government's unhappiness with the performance of the Service and the subsequent Coombs Royal Commission Report!
The PS Act represents the culmination of these reforms, merging the new culture of performance and achievement orientation with the traditional Westminster principles and a modern employment framework. It confirms the powers and flexibilities of Agency Heads but with firmer accountability requirements. The enduring framework is principles-based, defined by the APS Values.
How are the Values enforced?
The Values, along with the Code of Conduct, are in law. Sanctions are available for breaches of the Code of Conduct which includes a general provision that employees must "at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS".
Agency Heads are required to uphold and promote the Values, and the first two functions of the Public Service Commissioner spelt out in the Act are to evaluate the extent to which Agencies incorporate and uphold the Values, and to evaluate the adequacy of systems and procedures in Agencies for ensuring compliance with the Code of Conduct. The Commissioner must also report annually to the Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, on the state of the APS.
So the Values are not just aspirational statements, but are expected to be embedded into agency systems and procedures, and reflected in the culture of the APS. A key challenge for the APS Commission is to limit the gap between rhetoric and reality.
The APS Values
Let me turn to those Values now enshrined in the Public Service Act. While the Act does not group the Values or the elements of the Code of Conduct, or prioritise them, it might assist if I group them in terms of the way they define or shape:
- the APS as a key institution in our democratic system
- the relationship between the APS and the Government
- the relationships between the APS and the public
- relationships in the workplace and
- personal behaviour and ethics.
Five Values represent the classical principles of Westminster public administration which you will see in any text: an apolitical impartial, professional Service; the merit principle; highest ethical standards; responsiveness to the elected Government; being openly accountable within the framework of Ministerial responsibility.
In our relationship with the Government may I also highlight the fourth element of the Code of Conduct: that we comply with all relevant Australian laws.
The Values require APS employees to deliver services "fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously to the Australian public" and to be "sensitive to the diversity of the Australian public". We are also to focus on achieving results and to manage performance, key factors in our relationship with the public.
Workplace relationships are determined primarily by the merit principle, but are also shaped by such Values as communication, consultation, cooperation and input from employees, and providing a fair, flexible, safe and rewarding workplace.
Personal behaviour and ethics are emphasised firstly by the requirement that we have "the highest ethical standards". I mentioned this as amongst the defining characteristics of the Public Service as an institution, because our ethical obligations go beyond those the community might generally espouse for everyone. This is because public servants are paid by the public and exercise power over the public through authority delegated to them by the Parliament : the public rightly expects their money and their power to be managed with "the highest ethical standards".
The Code of Conduct sets out particular requirements regarding personal behaviour and ethics, and the Public Service Commission and individual agencies issue more detailed guidelines and advice.
While all the Values must be respected, there is no hierarchy, no ranking whereby one Value is subordinate to another. The Values need to be read together. Too much weight on one may conflict with another.
Balance between responsiveness to elected government and apolitical professional impartial
One area where there is a possibility of tension is between the need to be responsive to the elected government and to remain apolitical, professional and impartial. This is not a new phenomenon and there is a legitimate debate about the balance between them.
Behind much of the concern for increased responsiveness, or politicisation as some commentators would have it, is the difficult challenge of the communications revolution and increased scrutiny by the media. The pressure on ministers to respond to anything and everything immediately has increased dramatically over the last 25 years. At the same time the capability of the media has increased enormously, not only in terms of the technology, but also in terms of the numbers and education of media people and their capacity to draw on external expertise. It is natural that ministers require additional resources to help manage this pressure and the resources required are both political and professional. The interface between the politicians and their political advisers and the Public Service, is thus more complex and more fluid.
I have commented elsewhere on the importance of this relationship and of better understanding of respective roles and responsibilities in order to promote a relationship of trust and close cooperation. For example, for public servants there is a difference between explaining government policy and 'selling' it. Though marketing government services and programs is a legitimate activity for public servants, where that is part and parcel of achieving program objectives, there is a limit: we must not be partisan. Similarly, I would note that our statutory obligation to be responsive to Ministers includes providing "frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice", not simply to provide what Ministers might think they want at the time. I would also note, however, that our obligation to be apolitical, impartial and professional does not say that we are independent.
Public Interest
The theme of this conference is 'Reconstructing the public interest in a globalising world'. The concept of the 'public interest' is, of course, central to the nature of public service - but also to the nature of government. A number of commentators, both practitioners and academics, have debated the role of the public service in determining and defining the public interest. The inescapable view is that it is up to ministers and the government to determine the public interest and for public servants, within the requirements of the legal framework, to advise and to implement.
Mike Keating, later to become Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (December 1990) aptly put it this way:
"Any assessment of the public interest cannot be divorced from a consideration of who will be held accountable for it. It is ministers who take responsibility for the major policy decisions. How then can a bureaucrat be responsible for the public interest without being accountable for it?"
Helen Williams (1998) and Allan Hawke (2002) have expressed similar views. Hawke says that:
"Public servants serve the public interest by providing honest, good quality and timely advice to assist Ministers decide on what practical measures they wish to take to advance their conceptions of what's in the wider public interest. Once Ministers have decided, officials must implement their decisions within the law and within the comprehensive structure of checks and balances in our system of parliamentary government."
Mike Keating (1995) also focuses on the obligations of public servants:
"The key ethical obligation upon public service advisers is to ensure that decisions are fully informed and Ministers are not misled.[The public service] has a responsibility to draw on its professional knowledge and accumulated experience to point out any possibly unpalatable implications of particular policies which might otherwise have remained unforeseen or been glossed over. This would include any legal requirements which, of course, the government and the public service must comply with."
At the time each of these experienced public servants spoke, the emphasis was on the elected Government's authority to determine the public interest, because they are held accountable for it. I totally agree. But I would like today to highlight the second point each of them made, about officials' responsibility to comply with the law. Indeed, in my view public servants do have a particular public interest role : to promote due process.
Compliance with the law - referred to explicitly in the Code of Conduct - is no minor caveat to responsiveness to the elected Government. Most public servants have responsibilities under their agency's program legislation as well as under financial legislation and the PS Act; they are also bound by the whole panoply of Administrative law. It is in advising on due process that "frank and fearless" advice is most warranted.
Underpinned by the desire to serve
Public servants occupy a unique place in our democratic society. Meeting the demands of government, the expectations of the public and the requirements of the law is a constant balancing act which is not always easy to sustain. Having a set of Values, articulated and contained in legislation, is critical if we are all to understand our obligations and to achieve reasonably consistent outcomes - within the flexibilities that a rapidly changing environment demands. Dr David Kemp (1999), our former minister, marking the passage of the Public Service Act 1999, recognised their importance:
"The Australian Public Service is defined by its Values. They are an essential underpinning to high performance in organisations and are central to the public interest aspect of public sector employment. They are a manifestation of the democratic society that we serve and they reflect the expectations of that society."
Tony Abbott, my current Minister noted that it is not only the structures that we have in place which govern the quality of outcomes. He paid tribute to the quality of individual public servants with a strong commitment to serving the public interest. His very personal comment was that:
"Australia is incredibly lucky to have a cadre of senior public servants who are diligent to a fault, culturally self-aware, brighter than the average businessman or politician . senior officials retain an old-fashioned sense of vocation, of serving the nation as much as holding down a job. Most could earn more doing something else but remain at their posts from a sense of calling."
We public servants have much to live up to in these interesting times.
For those want more details on our legislation, Mary Reid from the Commonwealth is speaking on Monday (7 October 2002).
References
Abbott, The Hon Tony, MP, Address to the Institute of Public Administration Australia, Canberra, 22 May 2002
Dror, Yehezkel, The Capacity to Govern, Frank Cass Publishers, London, 2002
Hawke, Allan, Public Service - A Secretary's View, The Telstra Address to the National Press Club, 19 June 2002
Keating, Michael, Managing for Results in the Public Interest, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol 49, No 4, December 1990
Keating, Michael, Public Service Values, Peter Wilenski Memorial lecture in Australian Quarterly, Vol 67, No 4, Summer 1995
Kemp, The Hon Dr David, MP, A New Act for a New Century, Address to mark the commencement of the Public Service Act 1999, Canberra, 2 December 1999
Kemp, The Hon Dr David, MP, Foundation for Performance: A Quality Public Service, Address to the Australian Institute of Management, 27 September 2001
Rowse, Tim, 'The Responsive Public Servant': Coombs the Man, Coombs the Report, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol 61, No 1, March 2002
Williams, Helen, The Future of Public Sector Management - the Public Interest, Address to the Institute of Public Administration State Conference, Brisbane, 20 August 1998
Williams, Helen, Setting the Context for Values in the Australian Public Service, Address to the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission Conference, Building the Foundation: APS Values at Work, Canberra, 24 February 1999
Start of page